skip to main content
research-article

3D+2DTV: 3D displays with no ghosting for viewers without glasses

Published:04 July 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

3D displays are increasingly popular in consumer and commercial applications. Many such displays show 3D images to viewers wearing special glasses, while showing an incomprehensible double image to viewers without glasses. We demonstrate a simple method that provides those with glasses a 3D experience, while viewers without glasses see a 2D image without artifacts.

In addition to separate left and right images in each frame, we add a third image, invisible to those with glasses. In the combined view seen by those without glasses, this cancels the right image, leaving only the left.

If the left and right images are of equal brightness, this approach results in low contrast for viewers without glasses. Allowing differential brightness between the left and right images improves 2D contrast. We observe experimentally that: (1) viewers without glasses prefer our 3D+2DTV to a standard 3DTV, (2) viewers with glasses maintain a strong 3D percept, even when one eye is significantly darker than the other, and (3) sequential-stereo display viewers with glasses experience a depth illusion caused by the Pulfrich effect, but it is small and innocuous.

Our technique is applicable to displays using either active shutter glasses or passive glasses. Our prototype uses active shutter glasses and a polarizer.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

tp153.mp4

mp4

17.7 MB

References

  1. Agrawala, M., Beers, A. C., McDowall, I., Frohlich, B., Bolas, M., and Hanrahan, P. 1997. The two-user responsive workbench: Support for collaboration through individual views of a shared space. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. ACM Press, New York, 327--332. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aiba, T. and Stevens, S. 1964. Relation of brightness to duration and luminance under light- and dark-adaptation. Vis. Res. 4, 78, 391--401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Aliaga, D. G., Yeung, Y. H., Law, A., Sajadi, B., and Majumder, A. 2012. Fast high-resolution appearance editing using superimposed projections. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 2, 13:1--13:13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Beldie, I. P. and Kost, B. 1991. Luminance asymmetry in stereo TV images. Stereoscop. Displays Appl. II, 1457, 242--247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bimber, O., Iwai, D., Wetzstein, G., and Grundhofer, A. 2008. The visual computing of projector-camera systems. In ACM SIGGRAPH Classes. ACM Press, New York, 84:1--84:25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brown, M., Majumder, A., and Yang, R. 2005. Camera-based calibration techniques for seamless multiprojector displays. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 11, 2, 193--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cormack, L. K., Stevenson, S. B., and Schor, C. M. 1991. Interocular correlation, luminance contrast and cyclopean processing. Vis. Res. 31, 2195--2207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Diaper, C. J. 1997. Pulfrich revisited. Surv. Ophthalmol. 41, 6, 493--499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Didyk, P., Ritschel, T., Eisemann, E., Myszkowski, K., and Seidel, H.-P. 2011. A perceptual model for disparity. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4, 96:1--96:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Didyk, P., Ritschel, T., Eisemann, E., Myszkowski, K., and Seidel, H.-P. 2012. Apparent stereo: The cornsweet illusion can enhance perceived depth. In Proceedings of the IS&T/SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XVII. 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dodgson, N. 2005. Autostereoscopic 3D displays. IEEE Comput. 38, 31--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Dodwell, P., Harker, G., and Behar, I. 1968. Pulfrich effect with minimal differential adaptation of the eyes. Vis. Res. 8, 11, 1431--1443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Dvorak, V. 1872. Uber analoga der personlichen differenz zwischen beiden augen und den netzhautstellen desselben auges. Prag: Sitzber. d. k. blun. Gesellsch. d. Wiss, 6574.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gateau, S. and Neuman, R. 2010. Stereoscopy, from xy to z. In ACM Short Courses in SIGGRAPH Asia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossberg, M., Peri, H., Nayar, S., and Belhumeur, P. 2004. Making one object look like another: Controlling appearance using a projector-camera system. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Grundhofer, A. and Bimber, O. 2008. Real-time adaptive radiometric compensation. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 14, 1, 97--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Grundhofer, A., Seeger, M., Hantsch, F., and Bimber, O. 2007. Dynamic adaptation of projected imperceptible codes. In Proceedings of the 6th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Heron, G. and Dutton, G. 1989. The Pulfrich phenomenon and its alleviation with a neutral density filter. Brit. J. Ophthalmol. 73, 12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jorke, H. and Fritz, M. 2006. Stereo projection using interference filters. In Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, S.-C. and Kim, E.-S. 2005. A new liquid crystal display-based polarized stereoscopic projection method with improved light efficiency. Optics Comm. 249, 1--3, 51--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Kooi, F. and Toet, A. 2004. Visual comfort of binocular and 3D displays. Displays 25, 2--3, 99--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Matusik, W. and Pfister, H. 2004. 3DTV: A scalable system for real-time acquisition, transmission, and autostereoscopic display of dynamic scenes. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3, 814--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. McDowall, I. E., Bolas, M. T., Corr, D., and Schmidt, T. C. 2001. Single and multiple viewer stereo with dlp projectors. Proc. SPIE 4297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. MOrgan, M. and Thompson, P. 1975. Apparent motionand the pulfrich effect. Percept. 4, 1, 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Perlin, K., Paxia, S., and Kollin, J. S. 2000. An autostereoscopic display. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. 319--326. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Pollack, J. 1968. Reaction time to different wavelengths at various luminances. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 3, 17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Pulfrich, C. 1922. Die stereoskopie im dienste der isochromen und heterochromen photometrie. Die Naturwissenschaften 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramstad, M. J. 2011. Interference filters for viewing anaglyphs. Patent WO 2011031326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Raskar, R., Welch, G., Cutts, M., Lake, A., Stesin, L., and Fuchs, H. 1998. The office of the future: A unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques. 179--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Siegel, M. and Nagata, S. 2000. Just enough reality: Comfortable 3-D viewing via microstereopsis. IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. Video Technol. 10, 3, 387--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Sorensen, S. E. B., Hansen, P. S., and Sorensen, N. L. 2004. Method for recording and viewing stereoscopic images in color using multichrome filters. Patent US 6687003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Standing, L., Dodwell, P., and Lang, D. 1968. Dark adaptation and the pulfrich effect. Attent. Percept. Psychophys. 4, 118--120.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Stevens, J. C. and Stevens, S. S. 1963. Brightness function: Effects of adaptation. J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 53, 3, 375--385.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Taub, E. A. 2002. Still thinking outside the box. New York Times (7/18/02).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Vetro, B. A., Wiegand, T., and Sullivan, G. J. 2011. Overview of the stereo and multiview video coding extensions of the H.264/MPEG-4 avc standard. Proc. IEEE 99, 4, 626--642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Yang, X., Zhang, L., Wong, T., and Heng, P. 2012. Binocular tone mapping. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4, 93:1--93:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. 3D+2DTV: 3D displays with no ghosting for viewers without glasses

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
      ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 32, Issue 3
      June 2013
      129 pages
      ISSN:0730-0301
      EISSN:1557-7368
      DOI:10.1145/2487228
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2013 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 July 2013
      • Accepted: 1 November 2012
      • Revised: 1 October 2012
      • Received: 1 July 2012
      Published in tog Volume 32, Issue 3

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader